Take the Scientific American poll on Judith Curry

As a profile of Judith Curry in the November 2010 issue of Scientific American makes clear, the University of Georgia climate scientist has become an increasingly polarizing figure IN the past year or so.

…

Yet Curry herself is convinced that some of those facts are seriously exaggerated, and that the IPCC has failed to acknowledge the real uncertainty in the science.

…

She’s been denounced, sometimes vehemently, for her efforts.

So here’s the central question: Is Curry a heroic whistle-blower, speaking the truth when others can’t or won’t?

NOTE: I should add that this poll is rather poorly designed. On that, Mr. Romm and I agree. Bear in mind that many of the questions are multiple choice, and more than one answer can be selected. You can also skip questions that you feel don’t offer a representation of your view. – Anthony

UPDATE: If readers would like to offer some alternative suggestions for question sets in comments, I’ll be happy to setup and run a comparison poll here. – Anthony

I decided I couldn’t take the poll. Too many question where they forgot to put a “none of the above” answer. It’s exactly what Frank Lee MeiDere said, if we support Curry but don’t give the kind of answers they want for the other questions, they can show how “biased” or ignorant of climate “science” we are.

What a crappy poll. To many of the questions had no answer that i agree with…and it would not let me complete the poll with blanks so i had to lie (choose an answer i do not agree with) to complete it.

The questions and choices is ridiculously biased, and directly designed to twist the right options. Several questions do not allow for any serious and thoughtful answers.
I took it, just to add my two cents in favor of Dr Curry, but it is regrettable that a magazine with the word ‘scientific’ in its name had allowed for such profound stupidity to disgrace its pages.

Soo… there is thus-far about 1100 responses, you should take a look at the results.

That said, yes it is a stupid one-sided poll that either shows contempt of any knowledge the reader may have, or a lack of knowledge by the ‘pollster’. What a bunch of asses!!!!! So much for Scientific…. it should be renamed Unscientific….

Wow, what a horribly designed poll. As somebody on the SA web page observed the poll was the equivalent of “Have you stopped beating your wife”? Several of the questions consisted of lists of stupid alternatives. If those are all the alternatives that the bright lights at SA can come up with, then we clearly need more people reading WUWT.

On Ms Curry, I used to think her playing politics, and covering her bets while staying securely on side. But this latest material changes my mind: it sounds like the real thing. This is really burning bridges.

What’s interesting is that such a mild degree of skepticism is intolerable to the true believers. That is really extraordinary. Because Ms Curry is not radical, not a real AGW skeptic at all. She’s like one of those faithful Bolsheviks who died under Stalin, for only being 99% behind him.

Kramer is right… they’re in such a snit they don’t know up from down, hot from cold. (They never have known much about the latter so I beg your forgiveness). As far as this “poll” (similar to their “climate science”), the answers are so obviously tilted that there’s no objectivity, hence no reason to waste my time.

Ms. Curry must be laughing out loud–I presume she has a sense of humor. Anybody that would call out her colleagues as pirates undoubtedly does.

It seems to me that when people look back on the 20th century they will call it the “century of science” to contrast it with the 21st century “scientific dark age”.

I suppose it was inevitable: “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. In the 20th century scientists were given unprecedented power as a result of the stunning progress of technology (mostly from “simple” engineering like washing machines but I digress). As a result scientists were able to pontificate ad nausea about science with the politicians lapping up their every word as if they were the gods of the technological age. Absolute power corrupts and quite clearly from the article and poll in “scientific” American they are absolutely corrupt. It is like the Spanish inquisition: anything and anyone who dares to question the absolute authority of the scientific elite can be labelled a heretic and ostracised from the “church” of science.

Real science, in the sense of factual based discovery, drawing the inference from the evidence, instead of finding the inference to make a political point seems to be dead in the “scientific” American article. The question is not: “is Judith curry using the scientific evidential base …. ” it is “is Judith Curry preaching the devine doctrine of the scientific church which has been ordained by almighty mann to be the one true doctrine of the one true church”.

The SA poll is fraught with false dilemmas. Most of the questions forced me to answers that I would never espouse. This polarization and lack of nuance is exactly the problem in the climate debate. If this is the way SA views climate science, I fear for the future of science!

Most of the questions required answers that will naturally lead to the sort of polarisation that Dr Curry seems to oppose. The given responses only allowed for either rabid AGWism and redneck stupidity. Could the Scientific American not employ a pollster who could advise on a more nuanced approach? Or is it their agender to make their readers appear dangerous, unthinking louts of whatever stripe?

Come on guys, there’s plenty of room within this questionnaire to accommodate a healthy degree of scepticism, even if you don’t agree with all of the limited choices.

The important thing here is surely to register one’s support for judith Curry’s engagement in the debate on the blogosphere…..or not, as the case may be.

I just had a look at the current results and I would say that SA will be shocked and stunned already. I’m just waiting for the poll to be closed due to some “Big Oil collusion” tampering with their preferred agenda.

She IS a skeptic. All scientists are. Alarmists are not skeptics therefore they are not scientists. And Curry isn’t an alarmist. True skeptics dont deny CAGW they give it a certain propability. And sience isnt about absolute truths isnt it?

Those who are shouting for truth are either deniers or alarmists. Those who admit they dont know are called skeptics.

Though Curry wouldnt like this labeling. She made a post where she made clear shes completely against it. And I see a reason in that.

I just took their damned poll. How cheap and tawdy. Almost like it was American Idol or Survivor and we were voting for someone to stick around another week or go home now. I checked the results up to myself, and all indicators are that many doubters have voted (never fear, they’ll simply leave the poll open until they get the result they want).
Science isn’t–can’t be–democratic. A vote of 99 to 1 doesn’t make the 1 wrong or the 99 right. Change is always begun by one person with a better explanation for something than was previously available. Concensus comes after the fact, not before.
Dr. Curry seems to have that most valuable of scientific attributes: integrity. Too bad so many other lack it.

In Dr. Curry’s recent blog outburst, she says, “Not to say that the IPCC science was wrong..” i.e she still believes CO2 is causing the earth to warm. This outpouring is positioning her to speak for skeptics, but she certainly isn’t one. I am suspicious that this is an orchestrated backpeddling to gain a firmer foothold and try to redefine what a skeptic is.

Just to reiterate – She still believes that the IPCC is fundamentally correct in its science despite her continued criticism of their credibility. Why?

Bill DiPuccio says: “The SA poll is fraught with false dilemmas. Most of the questions forced me to answers that I would never espouse. This polarization and lack of nuance is exactly the problem in the climate debate. If this is the way SA views climate science, I fear for the future of science!”

Well, they probably stopped hiring anyone but foaming-at-the-mouth warmists quite a while back, so what did you expect, science?

Judy’s views on the IPCC process and climate change are not out of the mainstream or foreign to the climate scientists themselves. Yet, the views are foreign to the liberal mainstream media which has been consistently provided with well manicured press releases from National Labs, universities, and the IPCC that dovetail perfectly with their ingrained liberal bias / worldview. When someone in the liberal elite establishment (which Judy could be described as), tells the ruling class to “shove it” and volunteers information out of turn or against the orthodoxy, then they must be destroyed.

Very unscientific poll from Scientific American. Without reference to 451 or thought police as it might get our current political leaders another model to adjust, why is Scientific American trying to vilify Judith Curry. A disgusting effort from a corrupt tabloid.

You know I dropped my subscription of many years to Sci Am over their zombie/brainless reporting and presentation of CAGW when I wised-up after Climategate.

I wonder if they (and the rest of MSM) are starting to wake up to the fact that Climategate and the popular delusion (not to mention madness of crowds so-called scientific consensus) that is CAGW are great stories and if these stories were reported upon fairly and objectively it might just increase the relevance of their publication and increase circulation. I won’t help them though. They get no more of my money. I’ll just keep reading WUWT.

Anyhow, you guys publish all my “letters to the editor” and I appreciate that. They never did.

“8. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?”
* a 50 percent increase in electricity bills
* a doubling of gasoline prices
* whatever it takes
* nothing

I’m not against lower fossil consumption and think some price increases are relevant, but these suggested are too large; too much market intervention. All four alternatives are wrong. Maybe Scientific American wants us who support Judith Curry to chose the last alternative, so they can say that we lack moral?

I did chose “nothing”, but I’m for to do something. I’m sure that 50 or 100 percent increase of prices isn’t needed. (Is “whatever it takes” a more modest alternative? I don’t think so :P ) For me the question is impossible, and – frankly – stupid.

This poll represents the current state of “Consensus” on climate change. One either agrees with the one sided question and expresses concern and understanding of the catastrophic nature of AGW, or you’re an ignorant hick with kooky beliefs. Skepticism and objectivity has given way to acceptance and elitism in academia around the world. We need more Judith Curry’s and less of scientists keeping their heads down and not making waves to proctect themselves from possible ridicule. The long lasting damage from CO2, is to science, not the climate.

“You can also skip questions that you feel don’t offer a representation of your view”

That might have been true at some point but it isn’t now. I skipped the questions which had no reasonable response and the poll was rejected. I got little notes like the ones you get when you fail to enter your billing address when buying something. I have copied and saved all of the questions for future reference. They are proof that the increasingly misnamed Scientific American is opposed to scientific inquiry. File name: Bogus Sci Am Poll

Whoever wrote up that survey ought to be ashamed of themselves on two counts: being Manipulative; and, apparent ignorance of the scientific method; and, ignorance of politics. Other than that it was OK — as I ignored it after I saw how bad it was!

I did as much of the poll as I could, but man if thats the best Scientific American can do I’m gobsmacked. I used to eagerly await my fix of SA, but I can see why I stopped.
That is a truely woeful set of questions.

I wonder at the motivation of producing such a non-scientific poll and cannot fathom why an organ such as Scientific American would allow such drivel on their website. Apart from the obvious fact that science isn’t determined by opinion polls, science is not served by publications such as yours glibly biasing survey questions even if the motivation was genuine.

You asked for alternative suggestions. How about the following choices for Sci Am’s Q#2: “Judith Curry is:”. The selections are *not* exclusive. [Well, (g) should be exclusive of the others, but ignore that for the moment.]
a) a peacemaker.
b) a dupe of the IPCC.
c) a dupe of Big Oil.
d) an apostate.
e) a scientist.
f) a denier.
g) I’ve never heard of her.

Of course, you could “push” the poll the other way round:
Judith Curry is: (choose one)
a) a denier bought by Big Oil, who believes the earth is flat. And eats puppies.
b) a heretical monster for not believing the IPCC report.
c) a scientist.

“Once firmly in the mainstream, Curry says she was radicalized by the so-called Climategate affair”.

“Radicalized”? Really? I’m a little, er, sceptical Curry described herself in terms usually reserved for the process by which a young Muslim goes from regular kid to a volunteer for jihad.

Are these really the terms in which SA sees Curry’s openness to alternative theses and new evidence? Shocking if so – the sort of thing you’d expect to see in an extremist political pamphlet that sees everybody not “on-board” as utterly beyond the pale.

Ryan Maue says:
October 26, 2010 at 4:23 pm
My ballot was already filled in before I could even vote.
Judy’s views on the IPCC process and climate change are not out of the mainstream…..
She is receiving the same treatment as Juan Williams did on NPR.”

Darn, you beat me to it.

That’s what so great about our Constitution. We have a right to speak out without losing our head, literately. It will be a shame when we lose that right.

Despite the many comments that this is a skewed poll, I would say that the answers so far (as of 6:30 PM Oct 16 MDT) show an overall skeptical / realistic point of view in catagorizing the overall answers.

I would agree it was a poorly designed poll.

I am surprised Joe Romm tipped Anthony on this. I wonder what he thinks of the poll results so far??? Was he expecting answers to show an overall alarmist point of view???

The question that says “What is causing climate change?” is a problem for four reasons:
1. It assumes that climate change means “warming.”
2. It assumes that that answer is already known.
3. It asks for you to give an answer as if taking a survey will prove which answer is correct.
4. It assumes that one of those answers is correct.

The question asking “What policy changes do you support?” does not include expanding nuclear power. This is called False Options. This makes the question biased toward solar and wind power which in reality does not work on the scale that is need for national energy use.

The question “How much would you be willing to pay?” is fear mongering and playing on people’s guilt.

The question asking “What Judith Curry is” is abusive name calling.

Your magazine is called Scientific American, if you are writing for scientists consider that scientists are not stupid. If you are in this to make money by writing for the general public, consider changing your name to Public American. The general public does not usually buy things that have the word “Science” in them.

A very poorly constructed poll, much like the models and especially the policy. It’s amazing that putative scientists can have such poor products. At least they allowed me to check off that warming is man-made, natural and solar, all three are in the mix.

I get the sense the questions were submitted to SA by Schmidt, Briffa, Mann, Hansen, and Jones. Sheesh, the questionnaire was so slanted it might well have been a yes / no poll that asked the following questions:

Should evil skeptics be discussing climate change? __Yes __No
Is Curry an evil scientist other climatologists should care about? __ Yes __ No
Do evil redneck deniers understand CO2 causes climate change? __Yes __ No
Could the illustrious IPCC be more perfect __Yes __No
Are evil skeptics concerned about the horrors of climate change? __Yes __No
Is 8C a reasonable climate sensitivity __Yes __No
Is a carbon tax better than cap and trade __Yes __No

The question where Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums?– Is biased because the three mainstream forums listed are biased toward “warming.”

In the question What is causing climate change? Climate change is an ambiguous term. To the writer of the survey it may mean “warming” to someone who thinks logically the phrase “climate change” just means change as in “the climate always changes.” So it would not be logically correct to respond “there is no climate change.” Leaving no other options but “warming ones.” So you must either answer as a warmest or be logically wrong.

First, who are the scientists who belong to this consensus? Groups cannot be substituted for individuals in this answer. The usual suspects from Real Climate do not qualify for this list; rather, this list contains only names of scientists that have not come forth at this time. The scientists who have come forth in favor of AGW-AGCD are far too few to count as a consensus.

Second, what specific scientific claims are endorsed by the so-called consensus of scientists in favor of manmade CO2 as the primary cause of climate change that is likely to have catastrophic consequences? Do they endorse:

1. Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick? If so, have they read “The Hockey Stick Illusion?” What specific criticisms found in the HSI do they reject and what are their reasons?

2. The Warmist claim that rising concentrations of CO2 cause changes in cloud behavior that, in turn, cause additional increases in atmospheric temperatures? If so, have they read Roy Spencer’s “The Great Global Warming Blunder?” Spencer explains that there are no reasonably confirmed hypotheses which explain the cloud behavior in question. Do they disagree with Spencer’s claim? If so, what are the hypotheses?

3. The Warmist claim that results from model runs can be treated as reliable indicators of coming changes in climate? If so, how have they managed to transform what is by its very nature an analytical tool into a set of scientific hypotheses that can explain and predict climate change?

Those are my big three. The list is endless of course. I must say that I cannot believe that a scientist worth his salt would argue that there are errors in the HSI and that Mann’s Hockey Stick is deserving of support. Presented with that evidence, I would be able, finally, to persuade my wife and children that it is time to purchase farmland with a water source that is located far from civilization as we know it.

As far as I am concerned Judith Curry is a Scientist… It’s all she should be considering the circumstances….. The answer I was forced to select was “Peacemaker”.

There was no answer that reflected my view in Q7: Which policy options do you support?…..

My view is that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and therefore no policy should be implemented to “combat” it…… The answer I was forced to select was ” Increase government funding of energy related technology research and development”… Which also is a bit of an anathema for me, we should be keeping Government funding of science as low as possible.

Yes, something stinks in their results, when I looked just now, every single questions had 19 as the number of responders who did not answer the question. I answered all except one, so I expect that at least that question would have a different number for the non-responders.

However it is very, very clear that the audience this has reached is not only “sceptical” it is strongly against the entire AGW concept!

That “poll” is so poorly designed that is has completely demoralized me and absolutely ruined my day! It feels sort of like when you realize that you’ve been walking around all morning with a booger hanging out of your nose at a very important event.

Tried to take the poll, but the questions were terrible. Multiple choice, but it never had none of the above, which I would have used for all but one question. My submission was rejected because I didn’t answer all of the questions. There was no way I could. I really don’t think that they are interested in my input. Honestly, most of the choices were deeply offensive to me.

I took the poll last night, with about 500+ responses it was somewhat balanced in results, skewed a little I’d say to the skeptic side. Now with double the responses the results are a lot more skeptical, I’m going to guess it’s the WUWT effect.

This was clearly not intended to be a scientific poll, but just a little bit of fun mischief by the editors.

It is interesting Scientific America does not include any articles discussing the scientific controversy concerning the extreme AGW hypothesis. (A doubling of CO2 will result in a 3C rise in planetary temperature and – a separate set of hypotheses – the hypothesised 3C rise will cause the ice sheets to melt, rapid rise in sea level, increased desertification, and so on.)

If the planet’s feedback response to a change in forcing (any change in forcing positive or negative, include AGW) is “negative” (planetary systems resist the change, i.e. cloud cover increases or decrease to resist the change (70% of the planet’s surface is covered by water) as opposed to “positive” (positive planetary systems amplify the change) a doubling of CO2 will result in significantly less warming than 1.2C (1.2 C is the amount of warming if CO2 doubles and there the feedback is neutral.)

The amount of warming due to the increase in CO2 is less than half of what the IPCC models predicts even if 100% of the late 20th century warming is due to AGW.

Planetary cloud during the later part of the 20th century was reduced, by solar wind bursts that create a space charge differential in the ionosphere, which in turn creates a potential difference, which removes cloud forming ions. The process is called electroscavenging. (There are published papers and observations to support these assertions.)

Solar cycle 24 appears to be an anomalous cycle. The mechanism that creates sunspots appears have been interrupted. During a low solar magnetic cycle the solar heliosphere weakens which results in increased GCR striking the earth’s atmosphere which results in more cloud forming ions. The increase in clouds causes the planet to cool. There is a cycle of cooling and warming in paleoclimatic record that correlates with cosmogenic isotope changes.

I am curious if the planet cools will Scientific America issue an apology for having called those who questioned multiple facets of the AGW hypothesis as “deniers’.

A Parisian automobile paper recently published a letter from the Wright brothers to Capt. Ferber of the French army, in which statements are made that certainly need some public substantiation from the Wright brothers. In the letter in question it is alleged that on September 26, the Wright motor-driven aeroplane covered a distance of 17.961 kilometers in 18 minutes and 9 seconds, and that its further progress was stopped by lack of gasoline. On September 29 a distance of 19.57 kilometers was covered in 19 minutes and 55 seconds, the gasoline supply again having been exhausted. On September 30 the machine traveled 16 kilometers in 17 minutes and 15 seconds; this time a hot bearing prevented further remarkable progress. Then came some eye-opening records. Here they are:

It seems that these alleged experiments were made at Dayton, Ohio, a fairly large town, and that the newspapers of the United States, alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice. When it is considered that Langley never even successfully launched his man-carrying machine, that Langley’s experimental model never flew more than a mile, and that Wright’s mysterious aeroplane covered a reputed distance of 38 kilometers at the rate of one kilometer a minute, we have the right to exact further information before we place reliance on these French reports. Unfortunately, the Wright brothers are hardly disposed to publish any substantiation or to make public experiments, for reasons best known to themselves.

If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face–even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so– would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago? Why particularly, as it is further alleged, should the Wrights desire to sell their invention to the French government for a “million” francs. Surely their own is the first to which they would be likely to apply.

We certainly want more light on the subject.
—————————————————————————–
Of course, everything the Wrights claimed was true!

Compare this SNITTY, “well the authorities have told us this can’t be done”, to this:

Although most of us don’t think “nothing” is a valid answer to the last question, it appears we selected it because there was no better option. The poll was designed to get an AGW supportive response. Boy are they going to be surprised.

The poll seems really really poorly made, and biased. There were questions that were hard to answer because all choices were bad. with those types of surveys you need an other, or none of the above. It also seemed biased to the warming side, not neutral as a poll should be.

but I thought this quote about another study’s results was both interesting and amusing:

“Leiserowitz and his colleagues divided the US population into six groups, ranging from people who are dismissive about climate change to those who are alarmed. Results from the national online survey suggest that people who support action on global warming tend to confound the facts more than the climate-change sceptics. For example, of those classified as “alarmed”, 81% believe that the ozone hole — a separate and only tangentially related problem — is contributing to global warming, compared with just 24% of those who are dismissive of the science. ”

So most skeptics have a better understanding of the facts, whereas most alarmists confound the facts. No surprises there…

Thank you for reminding me why I quit reading the SA rag. What next – no Santa? You know how to spoil a guy’s day, Anthony!

An absurd poll like this one will be but a memory as more and more scientists cull themselves from the herd of consensus as Dr. Curry has. If ever she needed proof of her position on the state of the science, this pathetic poll page should be more than sufficient. We need more heretics like this.

And I hate to think what they’d say if she were to actually come out against global climate change.

All the answers should have been null, but the site requires and answer to all questions.

I think it should have had the opposite of the one I was forced to use as the least of all evils. Keep science out of politics. What really needs to happen is keep the politics out of science. Politics should use every bit of evidence to create limited but effective policies, and all that evidence should be of the non political variety.

I agree with the comments about the lame nature of the questions especially #7

7. Which policy options do you support?
1) a carbon tax
2) increased government funding of energy-related technology research and development
3) keeping science out of the political process
4) cap and trade (a price on carbon via an overall limit on emissions paired with some form of market for such pollution permits)
5) cap and dividend, in which the proceeds of auctioning pollution permits are rebated to taxpayers

Three of the options (1, 4 & 5) are the same bloody thing!
Like Cookie Monster said #3 should be keeping politics out of science.
So by process of elimination I chose #2 as the least offensive.

I felt obliged to take the poll seeing as Judith has stuck her neck out and will need all the support she can get. While I agree with neither peacemaker or dupe as an accurate reflection of her position (open to evidence and willing to engage in intelligent dialog). Maybe that is too many vowels for SA but I took peacemaker.

Very poor poll by SA. Bad poll. Bad, bad poll. Now don’t let us catch you doing it again.

The Poll can only by answered by engaging feeling rather than thought. Any value it has is in showing that the majority of respondents, many of whom will be engaged scientists (a useful poll questions which was missed), consider AGW to be bunkum and that Curry has in some degree extracted herself from the sea of corruption and group mentality upon which the Climate Change political agenda is based.

It is interesting to consider what the responses to a mind engaging series of poll questions might produce in this WUWT reply list. My guess is that it would be interncine warfare between sceptics of different shades and views and areas of expertise. That of course is how it should be. Open, public dissent based upon the very real uncertainties involved and with absolutely nothing to base policy upon or make money from or to usefully position oneself in the “higher” echelons of some learned “scientific” society or other by arrangement with ones allies.

I’m sorry, but until Judith actually comes right out with the statement that the figures she uses to derive hurricane frequency, intensity, potential damage could, may be, possibly, wrong, and that GISS, HADCRUT, CRU adjust, alter, fudge whatever the true readings so her results could be, may be or are totally wrong, anything she writes is still tainted by association.

Judith is recognised as one of the main players in Hurricane prediction, her predictions are used to develop insurance levies for deep sea, coastal, onshore oil wells, the cost of insurance plays a major part in the cost of delivering crude oil to refineries.

Just above this post is one that states that there have been no major hurricanes impacting the continental USA this year. Where is Judiths prediction?

Sorry, Judith can write for as long as she likes on her site, and I will read it, but until she admits that her predictions have been based on fudged, altered, adjusted data that does not relate to the reality of what has occurred, she is still in the Team.

Okay, I was thinking about how this poll was ridiculously biased to mocking skeptics and making warmists feel useful somehow, so how about this as a start for a fairer poll (pretty sure this one gives everyone a say):

1) Climate Change is:
a. A serious issue that we need to address urgently
b. A concern that requires some attention
c. Not something that requires our attention.

2) Climate Change is caused by:
a. Human emissions
b. Nature
c. Some combination of a and b
d. Climate is within norms, blame is meaningless

3) Climate Science is:
a. Responsible, realistic, mainstream science
b. A discipline in its infancy, prone to misinterpretation from time to time
c. Belief driven, akin to witch doctors and voodoo.
d. Not even bogus, but fabricated for political reasons

4) Is there a credible debate on Climate issuse?
a. No, skeptics are unable to comprehend science.
b. Somewhat, each side has some valid points.
c. Somewhat, one side is completely wrong but they should be allowed to talk
d. No, warmists are unable to comprehend science.

5) Is the IPCC a credible organization
a. No. It was created for political purposes.
b. No, they have proven unable to manage scandal
c. Yes, in spite of some errors their main points are accurate
d. Yes, the IPCC is completely credible.

It’s the sort of poll or audit which would have failed students on most undertaking a science degree. Is this the standard of methodology SA feels is acceptable? Interestingly, what will they do with the results?

In Dr. Curry’s recent blog outburst, she says, “Not to say that the IPCC science was wrong..” i.e she still believes CO2 is causing the earth to warm. This outpouring is positioning her to speak for skeptics, but she certainly isn’t one. I am suspicious that this is an orchestrated backpeddling to gain a firmer foothold and try to redefine what a skeptic is.

Just to reiterate – She still believes that the IPCC is fundamentally correct in its science despite her continued criticism of their credibility. Why?

I need her to question the IPCC science before I become a fan.

##############

well over 50% of skeptics believe that C02 does warm the planet.
even people like Monckton, Anthony, willis,spenser,christy,lindzen.
They think the amount is smaller than the IPCC range.

In political polling and voting there is the fact-based phenomenon known
as “fall off”. Once the main question at the front of the survey or election
ballot is completed, the respondents are less and less likely to finish the
survey questions, or totally fill out the ballot.

The phenomenon is lessened in actual voting within a single category by a
random rotation of the candidates’ names for the particular position.

I have serious doubts as to the validity of the results of the poll to
date… as much as I like what the total responses reflect.

As of 3:20am EDT there were exactly 2,518 respondents for each
question. There were exactly 4 non-responsesfor each question !

The exactitude of the number of responses to each question is not credible.

Well, well, well, who’d think I find myself agreeing with substantial parts of an article by Joe Romm? Specifically, I liked his strong recommendation that readers of his blog should threaten SA with subscription cancellation for this onionesque poll.

Excellent advice! Perhaps I should really do it. But wait! I already did that over a decade ago! Damn, can’t cancel an already cancelled subscription.

Comforting thought: It takes radical warmistas over ten years longer then us to realise that SA is not about science any more, but eventually even these guys get it!

As poorly designed as the survey questions are (The writer is a dedicated CAGWer?)
I don’t think that they’ll be happy with the results!
4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:
a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda 77.7% of votes with 2,043 out of 2,628 responses!
And the majority of the written responses both decry the bias behind the questions and reinforce the survey’s results!
I especially like this comment.
“Climate Change has taught me this: I now have about as much respect for scientists and journalists, as I do for politicians and abusive priests. Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 24 years of climate crisis warnings. Nice! History is watching.
Scientists not only polluted the planet with their chemicals, they also produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, strip mining technology, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change.
Don’t forget, you doomers scared my kids with needless panic and if you still think the VOTERS will allow this insanity, YOU are the new denier.
Get ahead of the curve because history is calling climate change modern day witch burning.”

And another superb response to the only real “Warmist” commentator-
“Is prof. Mandia for real? His comment is hilarious, or sad, or both. Speaking prof to prof, I’d like to know, M, whether in your discipline the facts are determined by a show of hands. It certainly is not in mine (mathematics). Any such enterprise is a sure sign of pseudoscience or something even less benign. Your reaction to doubt is antiscience. I encourage my students to doubt every day. If they don’t learn to demand proof then I have not done my job. I am in the business of education, not indoctrination. How about you?”

The poll is even more worthless than the obviously biased questions (and the inability to skip questions that don’t have a decent answer available). They are using a poll system that doesn’t even check for unique IP addresses. In other words, a single person could go and submit ‘completed’ polls as many times as they’d like to, in order to ‘push’ the results. The thing is worse than utterly useless.

In the good old days, Scientific American only posted “joke” stories in April, in the spirit of April Fools Day. The idea of a “joke” in a scientific magazine was accepted because it’s intent was to test your powers of skepticism.

Tim says:
October 26, 2010 at 9:32 pmI agree with the comments about the lame nature of the questions especially #7

7. Which policy options do you support?
Trick question. I almost went for option #2, as you did “2) increased government funding of energy-related technology research and development”, but then I realized this is about energy policy, not spending. Throwing more money at so-called “Green” energy isn’t the answer.
So, I played their game, and chose option 3, “keeping science out of the political process”.

Don’t know what all the fuss is about, i found suitable options for every question that either accurately expressed my view, or were significantly closer to it than any of the other options. Just fill it in!

I tried but simply could not find an answer that I could agree with in all but one question. To what purpose did this poll serve other than to mark how absolutely unscientific a formerly respected journal can be? When will SA come clean and say it was all just a joke?

This poll is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. No one is going to say “oh my gosh, look at all the skeptics!” Instead, the interpretations will be something like “80% of those who think the IPCC is corrupt also believe that science should not be considered in political decisions.” The seemingly bizarre questions are actually carefully structured to make skeptics look like wackos. Given the tone of the original article, could it really have been otherwise?

DCA engineer says:
October 27, 2010 at 7:08 am
When reading the poll results this morning, I noticed that some of the percentages totaled more than 100%. The total respondents are not being accurately tallied.
————————

Some of the questions allow the selection of multiple choices (For example Question #3)

I tried to take the poll last night so after entering my results I had to register. I never received confirmation from Scientific American so my answers were not tabulated. I attempted to re register but the link kept coming up not to the poll but the results. Are skeptics being kept (blocked) from having their answers counted???

This poll is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. No one is going to say “oh my gosh, look at all the skeptics!” Instead, the interpretations will be something like “80% of those who think the IPCC is corrupt also believe that science should not be considered in political decisions.” The seemingly bizarre questions are actually carefully structured to make skeptics look like wackos. Given the tone of the original article, could it really have been otherwise?

Matt, I think you may be on to something. We should bookmark your statement and watch for a future statement about how skeptics believe that science is irrelevant. Classic progressivism at work.

I did not check all the comments because there were so many. This may be a duplication but Dr. Curry teaches at Georgia Tech not the University of Georgia. We Techies are very proud of Judith and want her home to be listed correctly.

If you are going to write bad surveys, you must learn from the master… and the master is… the person who writes survey questions for the ATM transaction screens at K-mart.

My favorite is this one that requires a yes or no answer: (also known as the two part question)

The K-mart screen asked:
Did you know that Craftsman makes tools, the best in the world?

And you must answer yes or no to continue with your transaction.

If you answer yes, it is as if you are answering yes to the second question as well admitting that their tools are the best in the world whether you agree to that or not.

If you answer no, you are not admitting that their tools are not the best, you are admitting that you just did not know that they are the best. And now you do know.

If you are talking to a live person the way out of this is to say, WHEN did K-mart start insisting on asking survey questions at every transaction? As asking the question WHEN admits nothing.

However, this is a machine. You must answer yes or no to continue with your transaction. If you complain, the clerk, a high school student just rolls his eyes and pushes yes or no for you. The people who wrote this are sitting behind a two way mirror watching and laughing each time.

And to think, when I was in chemistry class, I used to write my lab reports as if I was writing for Scientific American hoping that some day I would be good enough to actually get published there. HA HA HA HA HA HA I guess I didn’t actually have to be good, or smart, or have a lucky breakthrough or insight. I just need to be on the right side of the political argument of the day.

No surprise here. The SA has been corrupt for years, and it’s bias is well known.
Check out SA’s disgusting treatment of Bjorn Lomborg. ( The Sceptical Enviromentalist.)
The idea that SA is anything but a AGW proponent masquarading as a science rag is laughable.
I’ve seen more factual articles in The National Enquirer.

I thoughtthe questions were awaful and leading— I didnt complete the poll.
I am skeptical— but not sure— with the right proof i could change my mind, so to me scientist such as Dr Curry, who try and address real issues/ problems are fantastic.
People like Dr Curry / Anthony Watts are what we need , they tell it like it is.
Cheers Dr Curry— I’m not sure if your right but I will listen to you.

Very loaded questions. I answered them to the best of my ability and then looked at the results. I strongly suspect that they will have to run this through a carefully constructed computer model in order to obtain the results they want, because I’m sure that’s not what they’ve got at the moment. Perhaps Michael Mann could give them some advice. Then again, they might just disappear it.

4150 people have answered, allegedly, with 8 people skipping every question. Top answers at the moment:

1. Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums?
Yes, it would help engage the citizenry. 89.9%

2. Judith Curry is:
a peacemaker. 71.4%

3. What is causing climate change?
natural processes 76.7%

4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:
a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. 81.7%

5. What should we do about climate change?
Nothing, we are powerless to stop it. 65.8%

6. What is “climate sensitivity”?
an unknown variable that climate scientists still do not understand 51.4%

7. Which policy options do you support?
keeping science out of the political process 65.5%

8. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?
nothing 76.9%

Definitely not if respondents self-select, which doesn’t ensure a representative cross-section of people. That’s the cheap approach, prone to badly skewed responses. (An apparent match of results between self-selection and proper surveys has been offered as justification – but coincidence is not a valid method of knowledge.)

Professional pollsters try to get a representative cross-section. But some people are always busy, others don’t answer unsolicited calls, and many have unlisted phone numbers (especially cellular telephones). Thus particular demographic groups are not represented.

Essential questions must be included, and phrased well. If a choice of solutions is offered it must cover all possibilities, not just the author’s knowledge. Professional surveys may ask a key question different ways at different times, adding to length.

Some organizations quote only results supporting their socio-economic beliefs, and “journalists” uncritically publish their press releases. Advocacy organizations and individuals abound, all inferring they know truth because they are incorporated or have a degree, or have a name or title that sounds impressive – that’s going on appearances, not reality.

Of course in our society we have a formal survey called “voting”, considered essential to “democracy”. But the respondents are self-selecting – you aren’t forced to vote, and the candidates are self-selected.

And there is the survey done every time you spend your hard-earned money – that’s called the marketplace, where theory meets reality (when you think thrice about spending, facing choice on what and where with your limited funds, you tend to think better).